Originally Posted by bmdbley'sBro
research, its been done. here's some: most red light camera intersections have shorter yellows to generate revenue. Studies showed that Our local goverment will happily jeopordize the safety & actual lives of your children or their mothers for the Money, as rear end accidents are higher at those intersections, From people trying to avoid a Ticket or monitary loss. other studies have compared roads with higher speed limits in other nations & found that it does not mean higher accidents or death. oddly it was found that hi-ways that were less policed had Less accidents & death compared to heavily policed hi-ways. wow imagine that when people aren't worried about losing all their money to mobile tax collectors they can actually pay attention the fuk'n road- Amazing.
as for 'kid runs out from behind a car' kinda red hearing, heart strings type stuff, no. what if that kids parents taught little tire stain to not run out into the road because they'll die? ya know basic good parenting stuff. all these what ifs, all this future seeing - lifes not safe people. what if you trip & fall down the stairs, better ban stairs? what if people stab each other - better ban kitchen knives - in fact everything pointy Everywhere! men could sexually assault someone - better cut off all mens pointy penises.
Dude, what the hell are you talking about? I was discussing texting and driving and you go off on a tangent about red light cameras and shortened yellows? Of course, as I stated, there are many areas the Gov DOES lean toward more of a cash grab mentality. The whole system of enforcement/punishment could be debated in itself. I agree, it is not perfect, but it’s not always a conspiracy either.
One thing I can say for certain is that texting and driving laws are not just there to make money. They took notice to this problem due to an overwhelming rise in automobile related deaths/injuries linked to distracted driving since the smart phone became the status quo (and this number is still very underreported because short of admitting it, or getting caught directly by a witness or police, its next to impossible to prove the cell phone was causing the distraction, so it is likley much higher then we know). Spare me ridiculous statements about un-policed roads which are the safest on the planet because drivers dont lose their money, and speeding facts about god knows where.
A) I would love for you to produce these "studies" so I can pick them apart for their design flaws.
B) For every one of those studies you produce I am willing to bet I can find 5-10 more that say the exact opposite.
Hell I could prolly find you a study that draws a correlation between ice cream sales in the summer and accident fatalities. Does that mean ice cream is to blame?
If there are no police, and also no cars on a road. I could say "Hey look! There are no police on this road, and no one ever gets into accidents! I guess we can conclude from that, No Cops = No Accidents!". Studies like this get published and taken out of context all the time. When you talk about something, make sure you understand how someone came to that conclusion before you make a statement about it. I just happened to do a long research review on this subject recently. Some of the stuff I dug up was laughable. The miss information to the general public is absolutely incredible on this subject.
And yes, in a perfect world, no child would ever run into the street. No one would ever get injured at all because we would all work, play, or do anything with robotic accuracy never making one mistake in our lives. But this is reality, and the biggest factor in automobile related deaths/injury is still human error by a long shot, be it pedestrian or driver. Like you said yourself, we TRUST that other drivers will be responsible. If that driver is not paying attention, the chance of something occurring goes up exponentially. This law is a deterrent for that.